this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
750 points (96.2% liked)

Comic Strips

12961 readers
1153 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
750
Sealioning (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by ahlooolahhh to c/comicstrips
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 77 points 9 months ago (23 children)

Is there a difference between sealioning and just asking for verification of a bold claim? On a forum such as Lemmy, where people are encouraged to have unsolicited debate in the comments, are we by nature immune from the worst aspects of sealioning?

[–] dual_sport_dork 107 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

There is. Sealioning is when you know damn well your position is wrong or otherwise odious, but rather than confront that point (or come right out and say it) you instead pester the other party incessantly to support every single little claim they make with the usually unspoken implication that everyone should think those claims are false.

The difference is that individuals engaging in Sealioning are not doing so in good faith, and the acid test comes about pretty quickly they they don't address or digest any of the points you've supported with evidence/sources and instead move the goalposts immediately and pivot to quibbling about something else and demanding a source for that, instead.

Another Sealioning trick is to fixate on something you said or take it out of context, build a straw man of your argument, and demand evidence/sources for the argument you did not technically make -- ideally, a straw man argument that is deliberately unsupportable, or is attacking a matter of your opinion and not a fact but treating it as if it should be supported by citations and evidence. E.g., I don't like Metallica because I think Lars Ulrich is a douchebag. Sealion: "Excuse me, but can you provide a source attesting to Lars Ulruch personally being a douchebag to you?" No, I just don't like him because he rubs me the wrong way plus the whole Napster thing back in the day. "Well, since you have not addressed my polite request for a source attesting to Lars Ulrich personally being a douche to you, [ignoring the supportable claim about the Napster thing] your opinion about not like Metallica is obviously laughably absurd [and therefore you are deserving of the ridicule and inserts I am about to heap on you, or will direct others to make at you]." Etc.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago

Spot in. And then there's the concern trolling, "it's important that you provide evidence for your disturbing claims about Lars Ulrich because otherwise you discredit the #metoo movement".

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

None of that is demonstrated in the comic, it's a bad example.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yep, pretty much.

I've been accused of Sealioning for literally sourcing one claim... with five different sources... Just one claim.

I don't have time to go through 5 different sources! Quit Sealioning!

It's not sealioning...

Quit gish galloping then!

Guys... providing multiple sources for your argument isn't a fallacy. It's literally just sourcing your fucking claims lmfao.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (27 children)

The difference is intention. The intention of the sea lion is not to convince you that your claim is wrong or immoral; it's to shut you up, by draining your desire to make the claim, since every time that you do it, a sea lion pops up to annoy the shit out of you.

That's a problem because nobody knows the others' intentions - at most we lie that we know. We can at most guess it - but to guess it accurately, without assuming/making shit up, you need to expend even more "mental energy" engaging the user, or looking for further info (e.g. checking their profile).

On a forum such as Lemmy, where people are encouraged to have unsolicited debate in the comments, are we by nature immune from the worst aspects of sealioning?

No. I've seen sea lions in oldschool forums and in Reddit, even if in both you're encouraged to debate in the comments; so Lemmy is not immune by nature against that.

They're just "dressed" in a different way; in Reddit for example your typical sea lion says "I don't understand, [insert question making a straw man of your proposition]? I'm so confused..." instead of asking you to back up your claim.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (5 children)

The difference is intention. The intention of the sea lion is not to convince you that your claim is wrong or immoral; it's to shut you up, by draining your desire to make the claim, since every time that you do it, a sea lion pops up to annoy the shit out of you.

Hexbear in a nutshell.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (8 children)

To add one more aspect: When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim? It basically takes the same time to just look at the summary of the search results as asking for a source. So I assume if someone asks for verification for an easily searchable fact, then they are acting in bad faith.

Also one more thing: If you notice someone acting in bad faith, don't engage with them. Downvote them, move on. This is especially true for the next few months until the US elections are over. You will notice it a day after the elections that the quality of discussions will increase because the bad faith actors will take a vacation. What happened on Reddit in 2016 is happening here right now.

[–] federatingIsTooHard 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim?

no one is responsible for supporting our argument except you.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I feel the same. If you are making claims with no source people should be allowed to ask for the source without needing to look themselves.

[–] PDFuego 16 points 9 months ago

Exactly. If I ask someone for a source on something I feel is wrong it's because I specifically want to know the information they're working from. If I look it up straight away and send them a link that says they're wrong straight out of the gate they aren't even going to open it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

To add one more aspect: When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim? It basically takes the same time to just look at the summary of the search results as asking for a source. So I assume if someone asks for verification for an easily searchable fact, then they are acting in bad faith.

This point rubs me a little wrong both on the basis that

A) onus of proof falls on the one making the claim

B) if it takes the same amount of time to find the answer as it took for them to ask you, then logically it takes the same amount of time to include a source for anyone that wants further reading as it would to make them look for it

and (most importantly)

C) you can find pretty much anything on the internet if you've got 12 minutes to dedicate to looking through all the clickbait.

The result becomes that I can say any batshit thing I want to and now it's your job to discredit your own stance for me, and if you aren't convinced, you aren't googling hard enough. Instead of just asking and finding out I got it from The Onion, which I would naturally be very against having to say out loud.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

This strip has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you make a statement in a public forum, don't be surprised when the public responds. They are not entitled to your attention, but you're not entitled to their silence. I will not be providing any sources to back up my position, but I'm sure your requests for them will be very witty.

[–] Viking_Hippie 70 points 9 months ago (18 children)

If you make a statement in a public forum, don't be surprised when the public responds

Sure. That's not what sealioning is, though. As the comic illustrates, sealioning is bad faith weaponizing of false politeness and feigned high mindedness, not honest inquiry.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 children)

To add what other people have said: the sealion in the comic is following them around and being obnoxious. It even follows them to their bedroom.

One aspect of sealioning is continually trying to "debate" someone for something they once said, even if they're currently engaged in a completely unrelated conversation.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Did anyone else read the sea lion's voice in a British accent?

[–] Cornucopiaofplenty 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but I read all of their voices in a British accent because I'm British

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I read it in the voice of Ben Shapiro. Like nails on a chalkboard lol

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

Other related argument techniques used on the internet (and elsewhere) often commingled with Sealioning:

Butwhataboutism is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.

Also, ignoring the rebuttal and constantly shifting the attack to a tangentially related part of the discussion forcing the opponent to defend and rebut each new point, generally exhausting them and causing frustration and irritation.

JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.

Moving the Goalposts in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Closely related to butwhataboutism.

Appeal to Hypocrisy (tu quoque) basically tries to invalidate your opponent’s argument by using a “your side did it too, worse” and shift the argument to them defending themselves.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Candelestine 25 points 9 months ago (18 children)

It's a clever method of trolling. But if you come prepared and/or are willing to put some effort in, you actually can wreck them with evidence and sound arguments that shuts them completely up.

This is very satisfying.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

Often the troll will just shift slightly and keep making demands regardless of evidence.

[–] Candelestine 11 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Don't let them dictate the convo. You can assert control as well, don't let them lead uncontested.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] half_built_pyramids 27 points 9 months ago (5 children)

This is why we need seal clubbing

[–] KnightontheSun 35 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don’t know. They stay out too late, get way too drunk and make a terrible racket when they get home.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kinther 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pardon me, I couldn't help but overhear...

Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?

I'm just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion that seal lions need clubbing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

Beat and kill them while they're young and innocent before they become well informed, intelligent adults that can counter and challenge your firmly held beliefs?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago (4 children)

It's also frustrating because there are people who are sincerely trying to discuss in good faith while having a different opinion, which is camouflage for the sealion trolls.

Of course, people increasingly forget about the former group completely, and react with hostility... It's understandable, but unfortunate for healthy discussion.

At least in your case, your response is to lay out robust arguments to explain your position, which is productive regardless of whether they're trolling or sincere. I've learned a great deal over the years from strangers on the internet putting a clinic on someone who may or may not have been trolling.

[–] zeppo 14 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Accusing people of “sealioning” is a great way to not have to defend or discuss poorly thought out or sourced claims.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Revonult 15 points 9 months ago (14 children)

Care to provide any evidence to support this claim? I would like to have a civil discussion with you about this. /s

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There's a joke that goes

I am Firm; You are Obstinate; He is a Pig-headed Fool.

By analogy,

I'm challenging offensive assumptions; you're asking stupid questions; he's sealioning.

[–] Chetzemoka 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Don't pretend like it's impossible to tell the actual difference between those things. It's not all subjective. Words have meaning and people are capable of perceiving the motivations of others accurately.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] daltotron 18 points 9 months ago (12 children)

You know I kind of find it funny that the internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just "people that I don't like". It doesn't really matter whether or not the person is actually "sealioning" anymore, or whether or not the word ever had a definition in the first place, because it's just something that you're gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn't like your line of argument, or the fact that you've disagreed with them, or whatever. Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there's another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there's another one.

Oops, you're a troll, you're a bot, you're a sealion, you're strawmanning my position, you're arguing in bad faith. Signals get crossed over the written medium, anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they're not. There's better insurance, better strategies against that, then just kind of labeling it and then moving on.

I think the biggest problem is that labeling the behavior doesn't really tell you what your response should be. If someone is arguing against you in bad faith, you sort of have the options of, arguing back against them in equal measure, equally bad faith, which I would say is the trap most people fall into. You also have the option of arguing against them as though you don't recognize them as being in bad faith, while being as courteous and nice as possible, which can go some amount of the way to clarifying that you're not arguing in bad faith if you've been mistaken. Or you can just not respond, which is probably a good idea. Don't feed the troll, don't reward them with attention.

But also, to some degree, someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn't really matter. What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they're arguing correctly. If they're doing so incorrectly, then they're not going to be giving you anything interesting to work off of, and then you should probably just ignore them. That's my advice. It's like, they're just a more advanced form of spam, and the solution to spam is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.

[–] Viking_Hippie 19 points 9 months ago (9 children)

The internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just "people that I don't like"

No, a lot of terms for people arguing in bad faith have originated on the internet because there's a lot of different bad faith arguments on the internet.

Confusing sealioning and other bad faith arguing with "people that I don't like" is a classic and common example of the bad faith trope called a strawman.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the person is actually "sealioning"

It absolutely does. You can't have a rational discussion with someone arguing in bad faith. Someone who's wrong or seemingly wrong but arguing in good faith might learn something or cause you to learn something, whereas someone arguing in bad faith is only interested in "winning" and completely closed off to even the most valid counterpoints.

it's just something that you're gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn't like your line of argument or the fact that you've disagreed with them, or whatever.

It really really isn't. That you keep going on about this misconception implies that you've often been correctly accused of arguing in bad faith and are trying to fend that off by convincing others that there's no such thing as bad faith, only subjective dislike. Which is objectively wrong.

Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there's another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there's another one.

The real irony is that you're trying to terminate the thought that bad faith arguing exists via a bad faith use of a thought-terminating cliché.

anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they're not

Again objectively false and saying a lot more about how YOU argue on the internet than internet discussion in general.

labeling the behavior doesn't really tell you what your response should be

While that's technically true, it's much easier to know how to deal with something when you know WHAT you're dealing with, whether you say it out loud or not.

someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn't really matter.

That's just ridiculously false. Couldn't be further from the truth.

What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they're arguing correctly

...arguing in bad faith IS by definition a way of arguing incorrectly.

solution [to bad faith arguing] is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.

Sure, but simple doesn't always mean easy. Especially when you have poor impulse control and were brought up to consider it incredibly rude and disrespectful to not answer when someone's trying to explain you something, whether they're right or wrong.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You're totally off target there. The problem is that we're mentally unfit to deal with this much info on a daily basis, and we're social competitors by nature. We default to scoring points on each other. This is what we are, and we're only noticing it because now the whole world can hear the whole world, all the time.

Reasoned debate isn't even done perfectly by those actively in forensics/debate clubs. It's a learned skill that only shows its true value among other adepts. At the same time, knowing who was funnier or more creatively insulting is a universally admired lowest common denominator.

The utopian promise of the internet has turned to ash in the mouths of its greatest proponents as the glaring light of the collected world has laid bare the indelible stamp of our lowly origins. We need smaller spaces, not larger, to shine more softly among friends who are not so exhausted. That's why I'm here instead of Reddit.

For the sake of form I'd like to have sourced a few of my claims, but time presses. I hope that my somewhat more gloomy views are not too bothersome.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xenoclast 14 points 9 months ago

That's a lot of words to say the internet is full of useless bad faith arguments that are meaningless. (This is said in jest. I completely agree with your position)

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Shadywack 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"I think eggplant tastes horrible"

"Got a source to back that up?"

Yep, sounds about like some motherfuckers around here.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yep, sounds about like some motherfuckers around here.

Got a source to back that up?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There’s two or three people I’ve interacted with here fairly regularly that perfectly fit this description.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ilinamorato 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I wonder if Malki finds the coining of this term to be his greatest accomplishment. I know I would.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›